MIT conjuring up 6D "super-realistic" image system

2008 has been somewhat of a banner year for 3D, but the brilliant minds at MIT are already working up a system that'll put U23D to shame. Hailed as a "super-realistic image system," the invention produces "6D" images that not only have a full three-dimensional appearance, but also "respond to their environment, producing natural shadows and highlights depending on the direction and intensity of the illumination around them." Without relying on electronics or active control, the process could be used to produce images with an "unprecedented degree of realism" -- resulting in something associate professor Ramesh Raskar calls the "ultimate synthetic display." As expected, initial applications for the ultra-pricey ($30 per pixel, currently) system revolve around digital signage / advertising, but it's really just a matter of time before Six Dimensions of The Jonas Brothers hits a cinema near you. Save us.

[D. Mux @ Aug 10th 2008 5:23PM]

OK...how many of you immediately began speculating about how this system might be used for futuristic pr0n?

[HOOPER @ Aug 10th 2008 5:24PM]

just you...

[Bunson @ Aug 10th 2008 5:31PM]

Nutsack.

[Mrmeku @ Aug 10th 2008 5:32PM]

...me too...

[Charlie Calhoun @ Aug 10th 2008 6:12PM]

Yeah, the first thing I thought was the Holodeck from Star Trek... THEN the ladder.

[a ham sandwich @ Aug 10th 2008 6:21PM]

latter. ugh.

[Wwhat @ Aug 11th 2008 2:11AM]

So are you ugly or do you have a contagious disease or are you very very old and poor that you need 3D porn when there's women aplenty?

[Bilbo @ Aug 11th 2008 11:00AM]

how come dude thought of the jonas bros instead of jenna haze?

save me. give me a hologram girlfriend who will ride my bologna pony virtually.

[D. Mux @ Aug 10th 2008 5:26PM]

How nice of Engadget to delete my comment.

[Bunson @ Aug 10th 2008 5:31PM]

It's called a delay, oh great clever one.

[Stiv @ Aug 10th 2008 7:30PM]

-1 for a double fail:
1-predictable comment.
2-not knowing how the comment system works.

[Ricardo @ Aug 10th 2008 5:37PM]

6D? This name is as stupid as calling an mp3 player with camera and phone an "mp7".

[Kokasov @ Aug 10th 2008 5:55PM]

Ummm... Yeah, the manufacturers her clearly don't know the definition of the word "dimention". This display is still 3D. Besides, it wouldn't make any difference if it were actually 6D, we'd only be able to see 3.

[James @ Aug 10th 2008 6:58PM]

Ummm... Yeah, Kokasov here clearly does not know the SPELLING of the word "dimension."

[Wwhat @ Aug 11th 2008 2:12AM]

He's good at youtube commenting though, I'm sure.

[Colin Potter @ Aug 11th 2008 4:25AM]

they borrowed the extra D's from the Large Hadron Collider... cuz... ya know... there might be extra D's or something

[Alex` @ Aug 10th 2008 5:59PM]

$9.2m for a 640x480 screen. Better start saving!

[Lazerface @ Aug 10th 2008 11:20PM]

just think what an optimus maximus with these pixels in it would cost, and how much it will suck when you spill coffee on it!

[Wwhat @ Aug 11th 2008 2:15AM]

US dollars? I think I already have that probably, although the dollar went slightly up over the weekend so they better put it in the shops fast.

[Knives_Out @ Aug 10th 2008 6:00PM]

whoa ... super-realistic?!

[DeanoUK87 @ Aug 10th 2008 6:13PM]

so its basically HoloDuke from Duke Nukem 3d with HDR?

could this be Duke Nukem forever about to surface?

[maty @ Aug 10th 2008 6:35PM]

You're kidding, right?

"DNF" stands for "Duke Nukem Forever", also, "Did not finish".

Duke Nukem Forever will never be released. Pigs will not fly and I will not be forced to eat my hat on this occasion.

On a side note: can't wait for "6D". Points go to MIT.

[DeanoUK87 @ Aug 10th 2008 6:54PM]

Yes maty... i am kidding.

[Jensh @ Aug 10th 2008 6:14PM]

"respond to their environment, producing natural shadows and highlights depending on the direction and intensity of the illumination around them." Without relying on electronics or active control, the process could be used to produce images with an "unprecedented degree of realism"

Oh! A mirror!

[Blastar @ Aug 13th 2008 7:43PM]

Still the Mirror looks quite 3D to me.
After all there are not many creeens that can do that not even with a 120X120 resolution.
I would expect at least this try to end up to a commercial affordable 3D home video system.
If you think it well, no product started from perfection, its usually the other way around, right ?
Seriusly this looks quite interesting.

[billobob @ Aug 10th 2008 6:25PM]

am I the only one who thinks everyday 3D will never really catch on like people think? I just don't see it being as visually appealing as everyone seems to imagine

[Colin Potter @ Aug 11th 2008 4:29AM]

yeah I dont think making everything look like its popping off the screen will help with realism a lot unless you're looking at something rather large... (thats why IMAX 3D works so well) because if you're watching, say, baseball on your 42 inch TV from 6 feet away... its just not gonna feel like you're there

[Rich @ Aug 10th 2008 6:31PM]

So, images will have realistic lighting and shadows? I wonder if it'll use Hardware Texture & Lighting? Will it be DirectX11?

[maty @ Aug 10th 2008 6:36PM]

Its 6D. Why are you talking about 3D? That's so last year!

[zak1516 @ Aug 10th 2008 6:48PM]

meh

[Dave @ Aug 10th 2008 6:49PM]

Holy Crap!! That sucks :(

I'll stick to my 1080p HD videos while these guys play with 7x7 pixel "6-d" displays... LOL

[kevin_ho @ Aug 10th 2008 7:09PM]

does anyone else think the little person in the pic looks like Hank Hill?

[The Dude @ Aug 10th 2008 8:28PM]

Bobby, I've got propane in my urethra.

[Anonymous Tool @ Aug 10th 2008 7:19PM]

I think they have the terminology right. They capture 6 points of definition per every pixel in the image... hence making it 6D.

As for the usage of 3D in APIs. I think the usage of 3D will grow along side Moore's Law if our interfaces weren't still invested heavily in the old keyboard and mouse. There are those wonderful touchscreens and tablets who's markets are growing as the costs come down but even those are still 3D (upDown, leftRight and Time). Once we starting getting into detailing more dimension then the need will arise for better interfacing. So the usage of 3D in API's will inevitably appear as soon as the more of the market desires it or reversely as the costs come down as to make them a cheap luxury.

[neofolklore @ Aug 11th 2008 8:21AM]

I like how Moore's Law is used on everything except transistors.

[HouseTrek @ Aug 10th 2008 8:21PM]

Just for completeness: the headline claims that the research was done primarily at the MIT but I know the some of the researchers and they are mainly from the MPI (Max-Planck-Institute in Germany). They have done lot of research in this area. So, there's no reason to say that's an idea of the MIT.

[Graham @ Aug 10th 2008 8:23PM]

I think Ill by me five pixels for the time being until the price drops.

[Rob theDemon @ Aug 10th 2008 10:19PM]

6D is unviewable by our dimensionally limited selves. 3D is pretty boring. Surely we want 4D, with the image changing over time?

[jwilliek @ Aug 10th 2008 10:33PM]

yay! now we can have Six Dimensions of Kevin Bacon!

[generally @ Aug 10th 2008 10:54PM]

I love how companies say the phrase "X Dimensions", when anything about 3 dimensions is usually just extra features.

[Wwhat @ Aug 11th 2008 2:25AM]

To make things even more confusing: I thought the 4th dimension was time, if so we already have 2+1 dimensional displays since they are 2D and things change over time on them.

[ds @ Aug 11th 2008 8:04AM]

Engadget comments have reached a new low lately. The overwhelming majority of comments seem to come from people that are completely unintelligent to begin with and too lazy to even read the stories. Am I the only one noticing this?

[neofolklore @ Aug 11th 2008 8:22AM]

tl;dr

[elsewhere @ Aug 11th 2008 8:54AM]

But the the good thing about photos (even 3d ones) is that they have the light and look of how the creator/taker of the image intended. if the image changes based on how your light source/environment is, then how can the image put you into the environment, give you what the artist intended, or make the object change your perspective?

@Wwhat-- you make fun of porn and say it is only for (among other things) poor people. HA, so having a girlfriend means spending money, or only being possible with money? So your girlfriends are ho okers or golddiggers? yet you mock porn addicts.

[NxP3 @ Aug 11th 2008 1:14PM]

You know what...engadget is always posting some cool technology someone is working on. I have yet to see results on some of these things. Either it's years and years away, or it just plain bullshit. I've heard tons of MIT stuff this year and the year before that. When is someone actually putting all these cool stuff to good use. Where is that perpetual energy, where is that miracle battery that charges in seconds and last for days. I want results.

[Wwhat @ Aug 11th 2008 2:20AM]

You should see the old cellphone a relative of mine still has laying around, it's gigantic and about the weight of an european car, and it has nothing but phone capabilities, no camera, no data, no texting, no mp3, no nothing, and a black and green LCD screen.
In short things DO get better all the time, it's just a bit hard to notice sometimes.

[Loomis @ Aug 11th 2008 10:25AM]

You've just lost your MIT privileges for today: no more Doppler radar, hypertext, ethernet, fax machines, Bose speakers, GPS, disposable razors, RSA public key encryption, or spreadsheets until this time tomorrow.

Source: http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/pulse/mit_inventions_breakthroughs/